In the words of Madison, “Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure” – in other words, the founders wanted checks against the tyranny of the majority. That was why the Founders wanted a republic of separated powers. While the government was to “be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable portion or a favored class of it,” the Constitution included a system of indirect appointments, including the Supreme Court, the Electoral College System, and originally, the United States Senate, whose members were appointed by their respective state legislatures.
Brion McClanahan – The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Founding Fathers, pg. 10
[Seriously this book started off fantastically and has so far continue to be more of the same. I knew I would enjoy it, not just by its title, but by the fact on the first page of chapter one he says,
Please repeat: the United States is not a democracy and was never intended to be a democracy.
The fact we are a republic is one of my personal pet-peeves and I find it nothing more than an expression of ignorance when someone claims we are a democracy. Further it is disappointing to see further attempts to destroy the checks and balances placed within the system, that exist for the express purpose of protecting the minority, and removing them so that the majority may have their way no matter the cost.
Last week Justice Roberts dealt another blow to checks and balances. Initially some viewed it as a strategic view and on some level it made sense if you hadn't really had time to think about it yet. The more time that passed though the more it just didn't make sense, but I thought I was maybe just being cynical. Then today, someone a lot wiser and snarkier said something that illustrated my concern and thoughts weren't because I was crazy but far from it.
The fact is for the past 225 years, the Supreme Court acted as an extra check for when political powers get out of control. Now we supposedly are required to suffer the consequences of our political choices?
Why should the few suffer for the choices of the many? The whole point of our representative form of government was to stop that exact problem from ever happening. The whole point was that every part would restrain the other, that includes the government restraining the "will of the majority."
The republic is slowly drifting toward a democracy. As we all know a democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide who's for dinner. Guess who's the sheep. Where's the damn gulch? -B]